Our report on joint enterprise, The Legal Dragnet, by Nisha Waller, made its way into Parliament earlier this month.
During a House of Lords debate, Lord Berkeley of Knighton highlighted the real-world and legal fallout of current joint-enterprise practices, drawing directly on The Legal Dragnet. He pointed to its findings on inconsistent decisions, muddled legal tests, and the knock-on effects for communities, issues that shaped a debate repeatedly circling back to fairness and proportionality.
As he put it, quoting from Nisha’s work:
Joint enterprise is unjustifiably vague and wide in scope… Prosecutors are then left to fill the gaps with speculative case theories and often racialised narratives from which juries are invited to infer joint responsibility.
The remarks came during the Second Reading of the Sentencing Bill on 12 November 2025, where peers questioned whether the proposed reforms to sentencing and offender management confront longstanding injustices.
Lord Berkeley also cited Crown Prosecution Service figures showing a disproportionate impact on Black defendants and argued that the 2016 Supreme Court ruling on the misapplication of the law has had no discernible impact on prosecution rates. Research from our ongoing joint enterprise project shows why: it examines how the law is applied, patterns of prosecution, and the experiences of those affected.
Findings reveal that young people and vulnerable defendants can face severe outcomes despite limited involvement, while families and communities bear the wider consequences. The project highlights persistent inconsistency, overreach, and the broader social costs of current practice.
The ongoing scandal of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences as also raised by several members of the House of Lords. Lord Berkeley pointed to the unresolved legacy of IPP, with many people still trapped in legal limbo long after its abolition. The government’s confirmation that IPP prisoners will not fall under the Bill’s proposed sentence-progression model only deepened worries about whether the Bill adequately addresses both procedural and human impacts of legacy sentencing.
Attention then turned to joint enterprise.
The debate also turned to the wider purpose of the Bill, including reforming short custodial sentences. We have long highlighted the problems with prison terms under 12 months, which make up the majority of sentences in England and Wales. Our research shows that these short sentences often fail to rehabilitate and can do more harm than good, both for individuals and for communities.
In our submissions to the Independent Sentencing Review in January, we called for a shift toward community-based alternatives, proportionate sentencing, and stronger support for rehabilitation, goals that align with the Bill’s ambition to reduce reliance on short-term custody and make sentencing fairer and more effective.
The debate illustrates how independent research is important for parliamentary scrutiny. Alongside Nisha Waller’s report, our work on joint enterprise and IPP continues to influence policy thinking, providing robust evidence for reform and highlighting the urgent need for change.
As the Bill moves into Committee Stage, IPP and joint enterprise remain key tests of whether the Bill will deliver genuine change or merely procedural adjustment, emphasising the ongoing importance of evidence-based parliamentary engagement.
